Superconductor Anomalies and Dark Energy
When the Sunday Telegraph first reported on gravitational shielding experiments by the Russian engineer, Evgeny Podkletnov, in March, 1996, the news was met with derision and disbelief. After a flurry of attempts to replicate the phenomena failed, with a few possible exceptions, the field entered hibernation. But, scarcely a decade after Podkletnov first gained notoriety, a highly respected European Laboratory - the Austrian Research Center (ARC), reported detection of acceleration signals from a spun-up, ring shaped, niobium superconductor, which yielded about 100 micro-g's for tangential accelerations of less than 10 g's. They believed they were observing an enhanced gravitoelectric field induced by a changing gravitomagnetic field around their toroidal superconductor, in analogy with an electric field generatied by a changing magnetic field. Its great strength was attributed to a mass increase of the graviton, inside the superconductor, in analogy with a massive photon believed responsible for superconductivity. However, direct measurement of the gravitomagnetic field yielded only 1% of the expected value, casting doubt on this interpretation. An alternative explanation is suggested, involving the macro-scale wavefunction of the superconductor in conjunction with enormous dynamic forces within atoms.
One easily calculates that the bound electron in a hydrogen atom's lowest orbital experiences an average centripedal acceleration of 10
By reacting to, and opposing, applied accelerations, this field would explain atomic stability by counterbalancing centripedal forces on electrons and nucleii that pirouette around their common center of mass. Such a field would embrace fundamental particles in a freefall 'cocoon', more specifically, a micro-Alcubierre metric, as long as the field's intensity is sychronous with cyclical acceleration forces, as in an elliptical orbit. At 10
Since no force operates instantaneously, it's speculated that 10
A vitally important fact is that in both the Podkletnov and ARC experiments a repulsive acceleration force was observed. Gravity is always an attractive force. Quantum theory tells us that gravitational attraction must be mediated by a massless, spin-2 graviton; which like all other Standard Model particles possesses positive-energy. The conclusion seems inescapable. To produce a repulsive, gravity-like, acceleration force over macroscopic distances (meters, light-years), it would have to be mediated by a massless, spin-2, negative-energy graviton. Now, as noted above, the length-time field can range between negative and positive states of the local vacuum. So, it could be that during the excursions into a negative vacuum state, the evolution of negative-energy gravitons becomes possible. That, in turn, leads to several additional thoughts. Perhaps the inflationary expansion of our Universe is driven by these small, momentary, fluxes of negative-energy gravitons every time a piece of matter undergoes acceleration. But there's a problem with that - an equal quantity of postive-energy gravitons should also be momentarily evolved, during acceleration, cancelling the spatial expansion effect of the negative-energy gravitons. Plus, the expansionary force of dark energy is not associated with regions of baryonic matter, but instead seems to be harbored in the intergalactic voids. So, alternatively, it may be an adjacent brane-Universe, characterized by a negative-energy state, that provides a continuous 'feedstock' of negative-energy gravitons; driving inflation. That idea is expounded upon here: Dual Universe Model
Comparing Podkletnov's experiment with the ARC group's experiment is, admittedly, like comparing apples with oranges. The one feature they do have in common is that they both accelerate cooper-pairs. The ARC experimenters apply 7.33 g's to both the cooper-pairs and lattice sites yielding 100 micro-g's signal. Podkletnov's experiment discharges 2 million volts between a YBCO superconductor and a copper plate, in a partially evacuated chamber, yielding 1000 g's. Electrons, in a vacuum, subjected to such a voltage will reach about 98% c. Assuming this occurs in the 100 micro-second interval, indicated in Dr. Giovanni Modanese's paper, the average acceleration on the electrons is something like 10
The puzzle here is that the superconductor in Podkletnov's experiment is stationary, meaning the proton's at the lattice sites can only be displaced a small amount in the rigid lattice structure, before they must rebound to their original positions. Presumably, some of the cooper-pairs exit the superconductor and traverse the near vacuum to the copper plate. Their acceleration through the near vacuum would be much larger than within the superconductor. The question is: Would they maintain their coherence outside the superconductor, perhaps via quantum entanglement, in the absence of flexing lattice sites needed to establish the bond in the BCS theory? In this regard, the reported flat, glowing discharge, originating at the superconductor, and transiting the partially evacuated chamber to the copper anode, is very suggestive of some kind of coherent electron behavior, unlike a normal spark discharge.
By enveloping fundamental particles, this field would severly distort the rate, and direction at which time flows, as perceived by an external observer. Thus, electric and magnetic fields, from every fundamental particle, would be modulated forwards and backwards in time, but average to the local present. As Richard Feynman observed, a reversal of time equates to a reversal of a particle's charge. The weak binding of cooper-pairs - 10
Copyright 1998, David Sears Schroeder